I apologize for the lateness of this. I started to post last night just as Care2 went down. Additionally Mark, I know you weren't real receptive to legal advice, but I felt it wouldn't hurt and as I have plenty of access, carried through.

I ran this past one of the Judge's I work with this past weekend. (The referendum wording.) I did not tell him anything about it other than providing the copied wording and asked him to look at it and tell me what he thought.

This was his response:

I have no idea what this means, but it doesn't make much sense. Is the person refusing to vote in the 2008 elections and then requiring the "new acting Congress" (the one for which he didn't vote) to act in accordance with their duties? This is not the strategy I would recommend for installing a responsible government.

Also, when I read it, all I hear are bald, conclusory statements. If the President is in breach of his oath, then tell me how. The writer claims fraud and deception, but provides no examples. Tell me how the lawmakers have placed themselves above the law. And explain to me how the writer intends to "use that authority to vote, instead, for an immediate end to all unlawful acts of Congress." How is this to be accomplished?

(Don't begin by telling me that we need to burn her because she's a witch; convince me first that she's a witch.)

This is not to say that I can't think of my own examples supporting these statements, but a true call to action should include the "why" and the "how."

As I said, I didn't tell him anything and so he really didn't have any idea what this was for. My point though, was that we may have a number of people that don't get it without a clear explanation. Perhaps adding examples after each accusation would clarify it to the average person.

I apologize for the lateness of this. I started to post last night just as Care2 went down. Additionally Mark, I know you weren't real receptive to legal advice, but I felt it wouldn't hurt and as I have plenty of access, carried through.

I ran this past one of the Judge's I work with this past weekend. (The referendum wording.) I did not tell him anything about it other than providing the copied wording and asked him to look at it and tell me what he thought.

This was his response:

I have no idea what this means, but it doesn't make much sense. Is the person refusing to vote in the 2008 elections and then requiring the "new acting Congress" (the one for which he didn't vote) to act in accordance with their duties? This is not the strategy I would recommend for installing a responsible government.

Also, when I read it, all I hear are bald, conclusory statements. If the President is in breach of his oath, then tell me how. The writer claims fraud and deception, but provides no examples. Tell me how the lawmakers have placed themselves above the law. And explain to me how the writer intends to "use that authority to vote, instead, for an immediate end to all unlawful acts of Congress." How is this to be accomplished?

(Don't begin by telling me that we need to burn her because she's a witch; convince me first that she's a witch.)

This is not to say that I can't think of my own examples supporting these statements, but a true call to action should include the "why" and the "how."

As I said, I didn't tell him anything and so he really didn't have any idea what this was for. My point though, was that we may have a number of people that don't get it without a clear explanation. Perhaps adding examples after each accusation would clarify it to the average person.

About four posts (maybe more) just disappeared. Anyone know what's going on here?

I'm reposting my first reply. For the third time.

OK, maybe this is not as thorny as it looks!

Technically, anyone who has voted in an election has consented to be governed and the phrase 'consent of the governed' refers to that agreement. BUT there are all kinds of government, with or without consent of the governed; military dictatorship (Burma); foreign occupation Tibet by China; puppet government (Iraq); tyrant dictatorship (Zimbabwe); fraudulent democracy (USA) etc.

None of the above are legitimate governments because they do not have the actual consent of the governed. And that's the key right there. Mark, you did not say 'legitimate' government. You said "just" government. Your own phrase gives us a way out of the whole thing!

A truly just government, just like a merely legitimate government, would derive its authority from the people it represents. But a truly just government would be more than merely legitimate. A truly just government would not govern the people because they would effectively govern themselves. Whether because the representatives in government did exactly what the people wanted and asked them to do on their behalf or because the people themselves were the government.

SO it comes down to the fact that Carole is right. The power of a legitimate government is derived from the consent of the governed. But the power of a just government is derived from the consent of the People...

Btw guys, please don't get frustrated at what seems to be nitpicking. We fail to make important distinctions in life far too often. That allows us to live our lives through broad and sweeping assumptions, never noticing what is really going on around us most of the time. The word is powerful. And God is in the details!

This is an important discussion and we are making powerful distinctions here.

We're crossing again. OK, so what this government is doing is not legitimate or just. We know that. We're not being governed here we're being ruled but what the heck - this is not a legitimate government.
Governed, ruled... We aren't talking about his govmt. We're talking about JUST govmt.

If we want to say this govmt is not legitimate then we say 'A legitimate govmt derives its power from the consent of the governed"

If we want to add that it is not just then we say 'A just govmt derives its power from the People it serves."

OK, maybe this is not as thorny as it looks!

Technically, anyone who has voted in an election has consented to be governed and the phrase 'consent of the governed' refers to that agreement. BUT there are all kinds of government, with or without consent of the governed; military dictatorship (Burma); foreign occupation Tibet by China; puppet government (Iraq); tyrant dictatorship (Zimbabwe); fraudulent democracy (USA) etc.

None of the above are legitimate governments because they do not have the actual consent of the governed. And that's the key right there. Mark, you did not say 'legitimate' government. You said "just" government. Your own phrase gives us a way out of the whole thing!

A truly just government, just like a merely legitimate government, would derive its authority from the people it represents. But a truly just government would be more than merely legitimate. A truly just government would not govern the people because they would effectively govern themselves. Whether because the representatives in government did exactly what the people wanted and asked them to do on their behalf or because the people themselves were the government.

SO it comes down to the fact that Carole is right. The power of a legitimate government is derived from the consent of the governed. But the power of a just government is derived from the consent of the People...

Btw guys, please don't get frustrated at what seems to be nitpicking. We fail to make important distinctions in life far too often. That allows us to live our lives throw broad and sweeping assumptions, never noticing what is really going on around us most of the time. The word is powerful. And God is in the details!

This is an important discussion and we are making powerful distinctions here.

I'll wait for Sara.

Since you are not governed, C, there is no need for any petition. No corrupt administration makes war without your consent or does anything else without your permission. If we cannot recognize and admit the problem, we cannot arrive at a solution.

Personally, when a corrupt administration wages wars of aggression in my name, against my will and without my consent, I admit that I am not in control, not in power, not governing, and that they are.

I appreciate your "opinions" and in-depth critique of my heartfelt input, Mark.

However, I stand on my objections, and feel no need to comment further.

Thank you for inviting the suggestions of potential signers/promoters, and for giving them fair consideration. Based upon each signer's full agreement with the final language, which is a respected right of each one considering, based solely upon their own interpretation of the provisions they wish to see included, we will each need to individually decide whether we can stand behind it and add our signature.

*C*

And we didn't appoint or elect them. They choose the candidates they offer us from among themselves, the ruling wealthy elite, and then they rig the election. We can't appoint them,  elect them, influence them, or hold them accountable. If we could, we would be free and not governed.

C wrote: ...the whole point of this referendum is to remind the administration (which is another phrase that I prefer instead of government) that this country should be "by the people and for the people."

WHAT???? No it isn't. I don't want to remind the administration of anything I want to remind us, we the people, that we have the right to self-governance.

C: Unfortunately, things have gotten turned around, and citizens now fear the very administrators they appointed to serve them.

That's why we have to stop reminding, asking, begging, demanding, or otherwise acknowledging the corrupt government, and start learning to govern ourselves.

C: As such, I could not sign a referendum referring to myself as "governed."

You mean we already have power and this pledge isn't necessary? We just remind the corrupt government and they'll do what we tell them? Impeach? Stop the war? C'mon, C, you know better than that. If you weren't governed, you would be saying what we need to do, not trying to remind some corrupt administration of what needs to be done.

(I apologize for exploding. Sometimes I just lose it. Sorry.)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but the whole point of this referendum is to remind the administration (which is another phrase that I prefer instead of government) that this country should be "by the people and for the people."  Unfortunately, things have gotten turned around, and citizens now fear the very administrators they appointed to serve them.

As such, I could not sign a referendum referring to myself as "governed."

Rob, "elected dictatorship" would be true, but potentially inflammatory.

As helping the numbers dwindle is our goal, it is only omitted for the sake of brevity.

C, I hear you. Let's think about it.

I guess my biggest objection to that phrase is that they are supposed to be governing the business and laws of the country at the direction of its citizens, who appointed them.

1)The part about,the voter being forgotten once the official is elected,is clear and accurate,but I wonder if the words "elected dictatorship"might be a useful term?Effectively,that is what is being described.
2)...I know you want to make the wording shorter and sharper,and this might not be helpful,but I wonder if an emphasis could somehow be placed on the dwindling electorate ie less and less people vote,due to hopelessness,disaffection etc..which effectively means that it is harder to justify that the parties in power and the system has real legitimacy .I would guess,that this dwindling number of voter's will be dwindling more over time.
Thanks

Thanks, Sara.

Carole, I also prefer consent of the citizens or the people, but "consent of the governed" is in the Declaration of Independence and has the AARP appeal that Sara mentioned earlier.

THIS is the hard work of self-governance that we have to get accustomed to. We need to reach consensus on every word before we can truly say that it is our will. And that means not just me, Sara, and Carole, but EVERYONE IN THE GROUP!

Oh, sorry Carole. We crossed. I'll go with either. I think 'the governed' is powerful because it reminds us what 'government' actually is.

YES, YES YES YES YES!!!

Consent of the governed is much better. I don't want to lose a single word of it. Because if you never read a single one of Mark's articles or a single sentence of any of the discussions you would still know, just by reading this, exactly what NOvember is about and why!

(Have to run out for a bit back in a couple of hours.)

"The power of just government is derived from the consent of the governed."

I would prefer to use another phrase, such as "its citizens," or "its people."

Note, this thread is getting long, so typing in comments is very slow. If you compose your comments in an email or message (that you can send to yourself or discard) or a word processor or notepad, then copy it and paste it into a reply to a topic, your comment can be entered quickly.

Sara, I apologize for nitpicking, particularly on things like commas, but I am concerned about clarity. How's this version:

The United States government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest, transparent elections, and has ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception--the political parties and candidates ask for my vote but cannot ensure that my vote is counted. Once elected, officials no longer take my vote into consideration and cannot be held accountable, so my vote is not a voice in government and therefore not a true vote.

The United States government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of legislators and officials who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have placed themselves above the law.

The power of just government is derived from the consent of the governed.

I reaffirm the final authority of the people to grant or to withhold the mandate to govern or enact laws in our name and I withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections. I do not delegate power to any representative to govern or enact laws in my name. I do not consent to unjust government in which I have no voice.

I am voting instead for true government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and to this end I pledge to work with everyone who joins this petition to establish citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

But I still think that if we work on it, we could make it shorter and sharper. It does look to me as if we are getting close to our goal.

I am a citizen of the united States and eligible to vote in the 2008 elections.


The government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest, transparent elections, and has ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception--the political parties and candidates ask for my vote but cannot ensure that my vote is counted. Once elected, officials no longer take my vote into consideration and cannot be held accountable, so it is not a voice in government and therefore not a true vote.


The government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of legislators and officials who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have placed themselves above the law.


The authority of all law and government is derived from the people.


I reaffirm the final authority of the people to grant or to withhold the mandate to govern or enact laws in our name and I withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections. I do not delegate power to any representative to govern or enact laws in my name.


I am voting instead for true government of the people by the people and for the people and to this end I pledge to work with everyone who joins this petition to implement citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

That makes two of us, C. We need either more input or a vote on what we've got.

Mark,

I think it is well-written and certainly conveys my own line of thinking.

*C*

Help! Anyone? I'd like to have something to put on the petition site and to make flyers to pass out by tomorrow evening. Is that possible?

Thanks, Melita.

Here's the latest version. Please, if you can help make it clearer, shorter, or better, please try!

I am a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in the 2008 elections.

The U.S. government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest, transparent elections, and has ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception--the political parties and candidates ask for my vote but cannot ensure that my vote is counted. Once elected, officials no longer take my vote into consideration and cannot be held accountable, so it is not a voice in government and therefore not a true vote.

The government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of legislators and officials who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have placed themselves above the law.

I withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections do not delegate power to any representative to govern or enact laws in my name.

I am voting instead for true government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and to this end I pledge to work together with everyone who joins this petition to implement citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

Thank you Mark, for I myself was not sure where to post it! Wish you success from my heart!

Melita, I have moved your important questions to a new topic called "Questions about the referendum." Thank you for asking. This topic needs to be kept for those working on the wording of the referendum, because we need to get the petition language finished and post it as quickly as possible.

We need more input. C'mon peeps! We can make this even shorter and simpler, so that nobody can mistake what it says and everyone will be happy to sign.

So far this is what we have:

I am a citizen of the united States and eligible to vote in the 2008 elections.

Whereas this present government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest or transparent elections, having ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception;

And whereas this present government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of holders of political office (officers) who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have, as proper tyrants, placed themselves above the law while making laws for the people;

And whereas the authority of law and government proceed not from the few to be imposed upon the many, but from the many to be applied equally to all;

I conscientiously withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections while reaffirming and retaining my authority to grant or withhold the mandate for any representative to govern or enact laws in my name.

I hereby use that authority to vote, instead, for an immediate end to all unlawful acts of Congress, including the preemptive war against Iraq, and for the implementation of immediate measures to bring about true government of the people by the people and for the people.

I'd like to change the legalese to plain English. Whereas and hereby turn people off. I think we can make this more concise. How's this for a start:

I am a citizen of the united States and eligible to vote in the 2008 elections.

The government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest, transparent elections, and has ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception--the political parties and candidates ask for my vote but cannot ensure that my vote is counted. Once elected, officials no longer take my vote into consideration and cannot be held accountable, so it is not a voice in government and therefore not a true vote.

The government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of legislators and officials who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have placed themselves above the law.

I withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections do not delegate power to any representative to govern or enact laws in my name.

I am voting instead for true government of the people by the people and for the people and to this end I pledge to work with everyone who joins this petition to implement citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.

Were you surprised, Sara? Government of the people, by the people, and for the people IS historic and redolent of the American ideal.

Also, my only 'goal' at this moment is to see the birth of a process by which we can be self governing, whatever the majority want that form of self governance to be. I dislike centralization myself but I have no doubt that many people will still want some form of centralized government because we feel safe with whatever is familiar. As hard as I may argue against it and as brilliantly as you may do so, I suspect we shall see - if we are blessed enough to see any real change at all - something less radical and more vulnerable than you or I would wish. But it will, hopefully, not be ours to call it. It will be decided by the people.

I'm going to take my last form of words and remove the final paragraph then send it to all our members for suggestions. Then I'm going to ask for them to please come and have their say on this page. If there are black and white clear divisions on certain points, pro and con, we'll have a vote. If we can find consensus that would be great.

Meanwhile - I met and elderly lady in the park today. We got talking over a stray dog and whether we could find a home for him (sweetest dog you ever saw). She started to talk about how the founding fathers would never have stood for this government. I told her about NO in November. She said "Count me in". She's completely apolitical with sort of republican leanings. She said, "A lot of people my age feel like this government has its foot on our necks. A lot of us would support you."

Hmmm, I thought. Maybe that's another reason why I want the language to sound historic and redolent of the American ideal... AARP I thought. I wonder.....

Im more than willing to lose the last paragraph. Not sure I agree with your logic but would not want to risk 'authorizing' tyrants under any circumstances.

Really great, Sara.

I do want to see more input about the wording.

I don't know of any instance in which calling upon an illegitimate government to step down resulted in them doing it. Mass protests have sometimes succeeded, but with a lot of dead people shot by the illegitimate government.

But I object STRONGLY to the final paragraph:

"I call upon (mandate) the new acting Congress to recognize the authority of the citizens of the United States of America and to begin setting in motion, immediately, a process of national consultation and referenda by which the people shall establish true democratic governance as envisioned in the proclamation of government by the people."

We are the ones who need to reject their authoritiy and recognize our own. Their consultations and referenda will never give power to us. They have no right to meddle in the people's business and we have to stop allowing them to do so. If there are to be consultations, WE consult. If there are to be referenda, WE do it, not them. To allow them to meddle is to waive our right to self-government and keep licking their boots. The business of the people is the business of the people, not the business of the wealthy elite in any capacity.

You might as well say, "We  call upon an old or new acting Congress to set in motion the process by which we can place a petition on the petition site to allow us to vote NO in NOvember." Isn't it silly to ask anyone to do that which it is our own responsibility to do and which we can easily do by ourselves?

Who said we need a bicameral Congress (upper house, house of Lords or Senate, lower house, House of Commons or House of Representatives)? Who said we want a Congress instead of a Parliament with proportional representation so that everyone has a voice? Or maybe local neighborhood councils instead of centralized government? Who said we need terms of office instead of rotating responsibilities?

The first step is to withdraw our support from corrupt government. The next step is to decide what form of government we can devise to eliminate most (nobody's perfect) corruption through REAL checks and balances, meaning total transparency and no secret decisions by kingmakers behind closed doors, no black budgets, etc.

If we have a Congress, the wealthy elite will buy them off or kill them. We need decentralized government because they can't buy us all off or kill us all.

I hope.

Well, historically quite lot of protesters have called on illegitimate govmts to step down!

Also, there is a protocol for an 'acting' government (acting in the place of an elected govmt until the elections can beheld) - between elections, before elections and in the even that a bomb blows up the House etc! In any transition we'd need one of those. So by recognizing Congress as 'the acting' govmt you have already leap frogged the battle to get them to stand down and to put transitional beauraucracy in place etc. as well as vacating their mandate to govern.

And that's important precisely for the reasons that you so eloquently enumerate! Remove themselves? Impeach themselves? Hah!

BUT how about *not* having a war with them, even a war of words, ever, about recognizing or not recognizing Congress and still winning? If we recognize them as the acting Congress which is a de facto position in any case and therefore the correct term for the political reality in which they are acting in place of legitimately elected representatives.

I take your earlier point about specifics, and maybe you are right. The fewer the better. But the principles are crucial. How about this:

I am a citizen of the united States and eligible to vote in the 2008 elections.

Whereas this present government has refused to ensure free, fair, honest or transparent elections, having ignored clear, regular and widespread evidence of election fraud and deception;

And whereas this present government is comprised of a President who is in breach of his Presidential oath and of holders of political office (officers) who have passed unlawful and unconstitutional bills and who have, as proper tyrants, placed themselves above the law while making laws for the people;

And whereas the authority of law and government proceed not from the few to be imposed upon the many, but from the many to be applied equally to all;

I conscientiously withdraw my vote from these compromised and discredited elections while reaffirming and retaining my authority to grant or withhold the mandate for any representative to govern or enact laws in my name.

I hereby us that authority to vote, instead, for an immediate end to all unlawful acts of Congress, including the preemptive war against Iraq, and for the implementation of immediate measures to bring about true government of the people by the people and for the people.

I call upon (mandate) the new acting Congress to recognize the authority of the citizens of the United States of America and to begin setting in motion, immediately, a process of national consultation and referenda by which the people shall establish true democratic governance as envisioned in the proclamation of government by the people.

Signed,


We may see the tactic a little differently. I see this act as having the same gravity as the Declaration of Independence. I really want to campaign on the NO in NOvember platform - I'd also like to see a document that people are going to know from their toes to their hair follicles has just retaken the authority of the people. It might have taken a revolutionary war but the authority to challenge British rule began with a declaration!. (Funny that the Brits might have been less devastating to the Native Americans in the long run!)

In the end though, Mark, this document is going to belong to the signatories. I cannot complete the citizenship process right now in time to b one of them. (Although I'd like to be happy about it when I do!) Right now, that's the members of this group - the ones who are willing to have an input.

I've said everything I have to say and suggested what I would like to see. I'll abide peacefully by whatever is decided. Oh, there's an idea!

We could send out a deadline for anyone to post a form of words here on the group. Then we could ask our members to vote for what they want? Or something? (Good practice maybe?)

You're probably right about the verification thing. But I'd like to look into it all the same because I do not want any possibility of some 'discrediting' tactic making it look like w made up any of the signatures. (Since voter turnout is already pretty low they'll just say that our signatures don;t have anything to do with it.)

Which reminds me. I'd like to go after the people who've already made up their minds they are not voting.

"Decided not to Vote in 2008 - donate your vote to us!" (Or something.)

(Oh yes, start doing! And doing this feels so much better than writing letters, signing petitions and bemoaning our fate.)

Also, we've been giving them documented evidence of rigged and stolen elections for years, and they haven't done anything except try to pass legislation that would only make things worse, so the chances are good that many of them are only in office due to rigged elections themselves. Calling on millionaires and billionaires to give up their illegitimate power is a waste of time, in my opinion. The largest protests in history couldn't stop the Iraq war. 80% of their constituents petitioning them for something doesn't sway them. Why keep knocking our heads on the same brick wall? If they were willing to let us have a voice, we wouldn't need NO in November. We could just tell them what to do and impeach or recall them if they didn't. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the Constitution won't let us impeach or recall them. It says only Congress has that power. And they haven't removed themselves yet, so I don't think they will.

Might as well call on them to allow proportional representation, without which half the electorate is disenfranchised. Think they would? We have to stop recognizing them, Sara, not ask them, tell them, or hold our breaths until we are blue in the face to try to force them to do what we want. We are not children. They are not our parents, teachers or guardians. They have no legitimate authority over us and they have abused their illegitimate authority. We have to stop recognizing it and stop delegating it power. Ignore them. They're just a bunch of rich folks who steal our tax money and use it to kill poor people to make themselves richer. They are complicit in war crimes. Would you have called on Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pol or Idi Amin or their governments to do something? Stop calling and start doing, is what I say. What say you?

Great points -- you two.  (and certainly worth pursuing)

Because it is illegitimate, I am very much opposed to calling on the acting Congress or recognizing it in any way.

There is an exemption in international law for heads of state. Ask your friend.

And of course any litigation within the United States is doomed to failure because the Supreme Court installed Bush in the first place.

We can use the petition site for the referendum. I'm not wedded to it either, but there does not appear to be any other way to get people to stop voting in rigged elections for candidates with similar agendas.

Try this:

I am eligible to vote in the United States Presidential election of 2008. I am opposed to wars of aggression, to job outsourcing, and to political parties and candidates that ask for my vote but cannot ensure that it is counted. I will not vote in rigged elections where I cannot be sure that my vote is counted. I am voting here to say NO in November and YES to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Hmmmmmmmmmm......maybe we don't need verification. If we are successful, we will know it because we will have millions of signatures and for the first time in U.S. history a presidential election will have low voter turnout.

Calling on Congress for anything is recognizing their authority, Sara, and they have no legitimate authority. If they had, they would have ended the wars the moment they learned they were based on lies, and impeached Bush and Cheney.

I meant to say that I'd *like* but am not married to the referndum demand!

RE transition, Mark, you've put it better than I tried to in an email that got lost when I sent it because Care2 was doing maintenance!

But we need some tangible, measurable goal nonetheless, however small. I'd *like* - as a first step to govmt by the people - to call on the acting Congress (because not duly elected) for the establishment of a referendum system'. At the end - "And we call on etc. "

Mark I disagree about 'grievances'. It is not a matter of grievances and which ones we can all agree on. I could list thousands of legitimate grievances against Bush and the govmt (every dead soldier and Iraqi for a start, every 9/11 widow, widower or orphan for seconds.)

But there is a legal side to this that we have to keep in mind. This is an area where my grievances and yours and even all the dead and their families are not relevant. It is the area of legitimacy where the President broke his oath and became guilty of crimes against the nation whether Congress impeached him or not and where Congress has illegitimized itself by failing to impeach and passing unlawful 'laws'.

This is covered under various sections of jurisprudence, not under the Constitution per se, but I find it so incredibly, suicide inducingly dull that I will probably be at it for days to try to re-find what I have already read - or cheat and get my friend to tell me where it is!

An oath is a contract and once the contract is broken the other side has grounds to nullify so long as it pleads those grounds. If it does not state the grounds and show cause, the contract remains in place. Morally void, legally binding. Thus husband discovers wife's adultery, husband provides proof of adultery in appropriate forum and divorce is automatic. Husband discovers adultery but does not ask for divorce until several years later - no way Jose.

My point is - bear with me for this - carving up the booty of a conquered country between favored corporations is not necessarily illegal - just completely amoral. Pre-emptive war IS illegal. So is misrepresenting an immediate threat to the safety of the nation. If Bush had done it right (as his Daddy did in Kuwait) the war might have stunk to high heaven but it would have been legal. Just as the unaccountability of Bush except to impeachment proceedings is completely legal however wrong it may be.

The enumeration not of grievances but of half a dozen or so crimes that, for instance, demand impeachment (thereafter prosecution is supposed to follow) and then require Congress to impeach, or which are completely unlawful by existing statute, places the authority in the hands of the 'declarer of law' rather as a citizens arrest does.

What I'd like to do is get a really good legal brief (for free, of course!) from a Constitutional lawyer. In *as short a form as possible* I would like to state something like that we claim the right to speak for law and people by virtue of the fact that the President is presently in breach of the terms of his contract with the American people Ch X, Statute Y, PP.Z and congress by virtue of (blah blah).

This isn't rhetoric. It is a legal position which requires a judicial response. Like ordering a recount when fraud is reported during an election for example, though in practice no response is likely. It is an important tactic but more than that, it is a completely party neutral position. Whether you are pro the war or against it ceases to be the question so much as whether you are willing to stand by and allow Bush and Congress to break, ignore or re-write the law in any way they want and when they are caught, tell the people to go and suck eggs.

I hope we can get right and left wing together on this at least, that tyrants place themselves above the law while making laws for the people. Bush and his cronies and the Congress who voted in unlawful 'laws', have done exactly that and so made themselves tyrants by the strict definition of that term. America was supposed to excape tyranny. So what now?

By the very act of calling the offenses and placing legal cause on record we are restating that very first principle - that the authority of law and government proceed not from the few to be imposed upon the many, but from the many to be applied equally to all. By stating these facts we are in fact and at the same time reclaiming the *authority* to state them.

Do you see what I am trying to get at?

Sara, we need to allow people to gain experience and confidence in self-governance. We need to learn how to hold our own elections and make our own decisions. It won't happen overnight. People need to feel empowered rather than helpless, to do what needs to be done instead of asking Congress or the President to do it. We are not ready for democracy yet because most of us don't know what it is, have never experienced it, and still want leaders to govern. Self-governance takes education, practice, and confidence-building before it can work.

Many indigenous peoples are way ahead of us because they have a tradition of self-governance on a local level. We have the advantage of being able to learn from them and at the same time, if we're lucky, to escape the government repression they are subjected to. We are not a single tribe or community that can easily be wiped out. We are a large and diverse people with a love for democracy who need only to learn how to make it happen. The first step is to withdraw our support from fascism. As we do that, we will learn better ways of doing things and how we can implement them. Nobody is going to do it for us, so if we want self-governance, government of, by, and for the people, we need to learn to govern ourselves.

I think we're off to a great start!

I don't envision us telling them "you didn't win this, we did," I envision us just doing it and knowing it and it getting spread through the alternative media and the international media.

There's a very good reason I don't want to confront them with our victory. In South Africa when low voter turnout discredited the Apartheid regime, it led to violence and confrontation. If we want a peaceful transition, we have to avoid confrontation. No self-contratulations or demands they step down, just more and more people getting involved in working towards a peaceful transition for a time when the government has so little legitimacy that it can happen peacefully.

That's another reason for not forming a corporation, political party, or formal activist group. The government knows how to deal with those, supressing them, infiltrating them, or co-opting their leadership. But how can it deal with millions of people acting individually and cooperatively in an informal network?

That's another reason I'm hesitant to close this group. When we get infiltrators, we need to point them to educational material and if they want to have any credibility, they'll have to work with us to establish it just like anyone else. And all it gets them is one vote, just like anyone else.

What we will have to do is ban anyone who suggests violence or engages in other forms of sabotage. Hosts should copy any post suggesting violence and send it to the other hosts to explain why they banned that poster, but not hesitate to ban such people and delete their posts.

Just briefly - we need a transition.

When the 2008 votes are counted and we say "hold on you didn't win this, we did". We're going to have to get the existing power structure to hand over power. We'll need a transition time for that and a mechanism for that to happen.

Then ,if nothing else, we'll need a referendum to ask people how they want to do this. Self governance or representational govmt where the reps are required by law to do what they majority of their constituents ask them to do. There are opportunities hear that we don't want to lose - to close loopholes that could stay open just because of the huge amount of work involved in 'policing' beauraucracy! We can't just take over every administrative structuer (Who would the we be and how'd we oversee them?)

I'll bet brains like Kucinich, Paul and Nader would have great ideas but they probably wouldn't even talk to us until it became clear that we had won. So first step, seems to me, is planning a transition period and mechanism to establish what people want while the hand over is being planned. They'll take it seriously enough then.

Self governance, that is, government of the people, by the people, and for the people, means that we have to do what needs to be done. We can't ask Congress or anyone else to do it for us. Self governance is one of those things like eating, sleeping, breathing, etc., that nobody else can do for us. Either we do them ourselves or they don't get done.

I know it will be difficult to wean ourselves from a system where we delegate power and then have no power ourselves, to a system where we do not delegate power and we retain our power for ourselves, but that's what democracy is.

It isn't easy. I've been trying to think about how we can collect and verify millions of votes. That's an immense task. But if we let somebody else do it, chances are that they'll cut a few corners here and there and our votes will not be counted. If it is going to be done right, we have to do it.

Believe it or not, we really can. The least among us would make a better President than Bush. We are competent, capable, resourceful people.

If our object is (and I hope it is) to delegitmize our corrupt government, we really don't want to acknowledge or support it. We don't need to itemize or list its usurpations--every time we collect a signature, that person will recite a list of them to us. We just say, "Vote here to say NO to this government and YES to government of, by, and for the people," and everyone who votes will tell us why they agree. 80% will say it is because they oppose the war crimes. Many will say it is because they oppose torture, wiretapping, the fed, outsourcing, or many of the other things you've listed. But each person has a list of grievances and all we have to do is let them vote NO in November.

If we list the grievances, each person will look for one they aren't sure of or disagree with, and refuse to sign. Others have listed the grievances extensively. We can provide links to many such groups on our website. But when a government has as low an approval rating as this one has, we don't need to state why, just to allow people to show their disapproval.

Suppose that we are completely successful. Suppose that we get more voters than the rigged elections do. Suppose that they get the lowest turnout in history for a presidential election. That won't cause the government to fall immediately. It will only have publicly destroyed its legitimacy.

That is when we can work on what sort of Constitution we want to have so that it will actually do what the Preamble to our old Constitution said that it was intended to do, but that it never actually did. That is when we can use the input from millions of Americans to make decisions, not just a few of us. And to vote on those decisions. Do we want a Congress or a Parliament? Do we want the highest law of the land to remain a patronage position? Shall we mandate that no military action can take place without a direct vote of the people? That's not up to us, Sara. In a democracy, that's stuff for everyone to  have input on and vote on.

We can't amend a Constitution that was written to ensure rule by the wealthy elite so that it will ensure rule by the people. That takes a new Constitution. It would be like modifying a horse and buggy so that it will take a six cylinder engine, or trying to modify the Wright Brothers' flying machine so that it will take a jet propulsion engine.

We have what the founders didn't have. We have the ability and the will to consult the people in how they wish to govern themselves, instead of telling them what we think is best for them. Maybe you know what's best for them better than they do, but I sure don't.

Great discussion. Take care of your health, Sara, and let's keep this rolling. Please everyone, feel free to jump in and speak your piece. You need to do that in order to prepare yourself for self-government, just in case we succeed.

It is going to feel funny, at least at first, to say, "Why don't we consider doing such and such?" instead of "Let's ask Congress to do such and such," but in a government by the people, it is the people who make the decisions. I'll bet when you were a kid you had to ask your parents for anything you wanted--we all did. When was the last time you asked your parents if you could go to the store, stay up late, or have a glass of water? You got used to taking responsibility for yourself, right? We all did. Because we not only can, we have no choice if we want to be responsible adults.

Well, I'm back. Sore but alive. I agree that we shouldn't use inflammatory language on the referendum itself. So leave out words like 'treason' and crime'.

And I can see what you mean about keeping the language simple. I'd like to argue, however, for enumerating those things which are - without a retrospective Constitutional amendment - already illegal. (I need to research the legal chapter and verse.) One thing I learned over the years is that you put your big guns right out in front in politics. Assume no one will ever read anything you print except the referendum itself.

Actually, I think I may really be talking about the referendum *preamble*...an important part of such a document that ought to echo the preamble to the bill of rights, self evident truths and all that (cogs whirring here) e.g.:

Given the illegal actions of Bush and Congress (pre-emptive war, torture, spying, detention without trial, placing the economy in the hands of foreign nationals and continuing to sell the national currency to private interests/FR

AND

Given that Congress requires the mandate of the people

And given that we the undersigned represent (let's say a round 70%?!) of the registered voters of the United Sates of America:

We the undersigned people vote
NO .... then I'm happy with the way you have it Mark.

And we call upon the present interim and acting Congress to immediately consult with the American people to (?
Would that work for, do you think? Anyone?

And while we've got to that bit... What are we going to demand that the temporary, UNmandated and acting Congress should do right away?

Establish a free fair and transparent voting system to be used in a referendum is one thing we'd have to include, obviously.

Immediate new elections under that transparent system would be my next obvious requirement. (Who cares who's President right now. that makes no difference as long as big money is calling the shots. But who is in Congress is another matter. With free and fair elections, our own independent nominees have a chance.)

Also the setting up of the same election system to allow for national referenda on issues of nation importance and requiring the States to do the same re issues that rest with each State. (Following the models of Switzerland or the Netherlands?)

I'd say end the war in the middle east but they truly cannot do that
while the national currency is owned and controlled by the same people who own and control Halliburton et al. I only started really looking into this recently - though I'd known about it for years. These people actually own America.

So, if we say end the illegal occupation of Iraq we have to include withdrawing the license for the FR to print our money and returning it to the people.

Or we can put withdrawal from Iraq on the referendum list... (Illegal wars should be stopped without waiting for a new government though.)

Immediate reversal of all measures currently in violation of American and international law?

Constitutional amendments which ensure govmt by and for the people?

Your turn....

I can't think of anywhere else I'd rather be.

(LIE)

*C*

You need it in order to exercise your freedom.

YES to government of the people, by the people, and for the people, sounds good to me and I think it will to most folks, even if they don't know that it is prohibited by the Constitution.

I want to discuss the other things you listed, but let's take it slow and wait until you feel better. We've had this dumb oligarchy for more than 200 years. It has gotten much worse lately, but it isn't going to go away overnight, so we can talk about it tomorrow.

Welcome back, Carole!

Still in pain. Hopefully it''s just a bug!

OK - I have a copy of the Constitution can see exactly what you mean.

We'd need a Constitutional amendment (or two or three) to ensure accountability, transparency and the authority of the people over their paid servants, before we could get behind it without argument.

AS you say, "A government of, by, and for a Unitary President, an unelected Supreme Court, or a defense and industrial establishment, is not a government of, by, and for the people." So there is a contradiction in the founding documents - or else in the way that they evolved which must be resolved. Too complicated to say so we'd better leave out the 'yes to the Constitution' bit

"of, by and for the people' is pivotal. No matter however it has failed to deliver on its promise, there is an ideal of the 'real America' that is what people think of when they sing the national anthem! The dark side, what history tells us really happened, does not inspire the way that dreams do! So we're kind of saying that we are behind what people think of, what most people mean when they speak about the Constitution. Maybe we could substitute YES to those democratic rights, freedoms and duties enshrined in the Bill of Rights? (It's a selective use of language but true nonetheless.)

Legally the President takes the oath to uphold the Constitution thus it is by violating the provisions that he violates the oath. (Sadly, I'm going to have to take a similar oath so let's get on with having our amendments passed!!) Basically some pretty acute lawyers are also saying that, at this moment, Bush is not authorized to act as President. (There's a lot of really good stuff on this, I'll try to find some of it and put it up here.)

Just give me a little time to recover! I'm sure I'll be back on form tomorrow!

I'm here!

*C*

Hope you're feeling better.

I just send Carole a message and hope I hear back. It may have been something I said because I don't want to devote energy to educating people about past stolen elections (many groups are doing that), but to PREVENT the next one from being stolen.

I would not want to say yes to the Constitution because it is the Constitution that does not allow us a democracy or even a republic. In a democracy we could vote directly for all candidates and on all issues. The Constitution forbids that. In a Republic we could hold our representatives accountable by removing them from office if they failed to represent us. The Constitution forbids that. Only Congress itself can remove Congressmembers, and that's like asking Bush to impeach Bush.

To say yes to our Constitution is to say no to democracy. They are not compatible. Our power derives from our inalienable rights, which predate the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence says clearly that it is not just our right, but our duty and responsibility to remove and replace any undemocratic government.

I think it is a great idea to discuss these things. But we can't end torture and war crimes by appealing to the Constitution, because the Constitution says that the final interpreter of the Constitution is not We the People, but some people we had no say in empowering, an unelected Supreme Court the Constitution does not allow us to hold accountable. We can't put them there, we can't remove them, and their decisions are final. So all criminal administrations have merely to appeal to the Supreme Court to have whatever they do ruled Constitutional. And, of course, if the Supreme Court should rule against them (they don't appoint people who would rule against them, but just saying that if it did), they have, according to the Constitution, the power to pardon themselves.

I have to take a break too, but I'll come back because I really want to discuss this more. It is crucial to what we're doing to have referendum language that will be acceptable to most people and will also achieve the goals of not only discrediting an illegitimate system, but also of establishing a real democracy, a government of, by, and for the people.

A government of, by, and for a Unitary President, an unelected Supreme Court, or a defense and industrial establishment, is not a government of, by, and for the people.

When a Constitution says that the people may not directly elect or directly impeach a President, it is not a document intended to establish a government by the people. When a Constitution says that the final dcision as to what is Constitutional or not is up to an unelected Supreme Court, it gives ultimate power to a body over which the people have no control, not to the people, so it isn't a democratic document and it was not intended to establish a democracy.

We really need to get clear on these things. I have a copy of the Constitution right here, do you? If so, we can discuss anything in it that you think is intended to establish a democratic form of government, or even a republic, which is a form of democracy where the people still govern but instead of doing it directly, they do it through representatives who they can hold accountable. We cannot hold our representatives accountable. We can try voting them out when their terms are up, but in the meantime they are not accountable to us, as in the example I gave about Representative John Olver, who just shrugged off a petition from 80% of his constituents asking him to support impeachment. He isn't accountable. If they don't like what he does they just have to wait until his term is up and try to unseat him in the next rigged election.

I have some more I'd like to add to this. I'd like to be really specific about the treasons that have committed against the people of this country and crimes against humanity internationally. I don't mean detailed charges, but:


NO to attacking countries that have not attacked us (illegal under international law x and Constitution y);
NO to American use WMDs;
NO to government spying on its people (again chapter and verse);
NO to detention without trial (chapter and verse of law);
NO to torture (" ") under any circumstances, ever;
NO to the authority of any Congress that violates the Constitution by voting in illegal and unconstitutional measures;
NO the fraudulent and illegal credit for money system;
NO to the illegal FDRS;
NO to corporate supremacy over the law, the Constitution and the people;
NO to secret vote counts;
NO to any unaccountable and unrepresentative political office;
NO to any laws, policies or decisions in which we have no vote;
NO to outsourced jobs.

A am voting yes:
YES to Citizen owned (as above)
YES to the Constitution of the United States of America
Government of the people etc....

I'd really like for us to play around with this for a bit.

a. I think this is a chance to tell the politicians and 'masses' why the House of representatives and the President AND the voting system have lost their authority over the nation, legally, morally and constitutionally. I'm most concerned to include those crimes that could be proven in a Court of Law and which, by existing law and precedent, empower the people to take back the authority that they have vested in their 'elected' leaders.

b. It's more than we don't like this and we aren't putting up with it any more. It's:
"You guys have forgotten where you authority comes from and that there are certain crimes which abolish that authority. You've committed them this is a citizens arrest!"

Whether they get away with it or not, they're criminals and they will have been charged with specific and provable crimes. And what I like about this is that the minute we deliver this, no matter who realizes it or does not, we have just become the legal authority (acting on behalf of Constitution and people) in the country. Really and truly. There is real power in that - the kind of power that Ghandi used.

I have to go, I've got horrible stomach pains and I need to go curl up and moan for a while!

Mark - Carole has disappeared from the members list. She may need help to be rejoined!

I am a citizen of the United States of America and eligible to vote. I will not vote in November. I am casting my vote in this grassroots referendum to say:

1. NO war.

2. NO more outsourced jobs.

3. NO policy decisions we cannot vote on directly.

4. NO secret vote counts.

I am voting YES to citizen-owned transparent participatory democracy where my vote is really counted, where I have a real voice in government.

I am voting YES to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Name:

(Addresses might need to be supplied for verification purposes, but should be kept private.)

OOgey Boogey...Means yes in Gorilly...

Gorilly

YES!

This is the intro that Sara wrote for this group:

To vote in the November 2008 election is to acknowledge: the legitimacy of a government that is guilty of treason; the legitimacy of a Congress that is guilty of treason; the legitimacy of rigged elections. Obama, Clinton or McCain? NO.

We need to work on the actual language of the referendum. I don't think we want to mention the names of candidates or use the word treason. We want to stick to things that we know most Americans agree on.

NO war.

NO outsourcing jobs.

That's pretty simple so far. But what about NO taxation without ACCOUNTABLE representation? That might be too complicated.

NO decisions without a popular vote. Is that better?

NO torture.

I think most Americans could agree that we want government of, by, and for the people. Could we say what this is a YES vote on, for example YES to citizen-owned transparent, participatory democracy?

Suggestions?